Big Labor's losses

We are currently undergoing updates to our site and are working to improve your experience on all devices that you use throughout your day. If you should find a page or a story that is not working correctly, please click here.

Thank you for your patience,

TribLIVE.com Team

The failed union vote at Volkswagen's Chattanooga plant isn't Big Labor's only big embarrassment. Consider also the Republican win for mayor in, of all union strongholds, San Diego.

Republican Kevin Faulconer “knocked the stuffing out of” union-backed Democrat David Alvarez, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. And just within the last year, labor's favored candidate in the Los Angeles mayor election fell to an opponent who pilloried her links to labor.

Consider, as well, that these stinging defeats for organized labor, both in the public and private sectors, accompany its favored status from the Obama administration, in general, and from its puppet appointees on the National Labor Relations Board, specifically.

Could it be that unsustainable public-sector pensions for unions are taking a toll on baby boomers, who are finding out that their own golden years, as a result of higher taxes, are being reduced to tin?

Or perhaps transit and teacher strikes finally are catching up with the politicians who wear the union label, toe the union line, but are losing favor with the frustrated folks who put them in office?

The times are changing for labor unions, as these episodes demonstrate. The question is, when will Pennsylvania catch up with the rest of the country in recognizing that Big Labor's day is done?

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.